Karnataka High Court
Smt. K. Shivaleela W/O Balappa vs Desai Logistics Goa Pvt. Ltd on 28 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 24378 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24378 OF 2010 (WC-)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. K. SHIVALEELA W/O BALAPPA,
AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O JAVOOR,
TQ. NAVALGUND, DIST. DHARWAD.
SRI. YELLAPPA HULIGOPPA
S/O LATE KANTEPPA,
DIED AND REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS,
APPELLANTS 1 AND 2 HEREIN
2. SMT. LAKSHMAVVA
W/O LATE YELLAPPA HULIGOPPA,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
R/O JAVOOR, TQ. NAVALGUND,
DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA ADV., FOR
Digitally
signed by
SMT. G. K. KEERTHI, ADV., FOR APPELLANTS)
SUJATA
SUBHASH
PAMMAR AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA,
1. DESAI LOGISTICS GOA PVT. LTD.,
DHARWAD
BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. VILAS RAMA GAUNS DESAI,
OWNER OF THE LORRY
BEARING REG. NO. KA-22/B-1082,
R/O FLAT NO. 201, MAGESTIC AVENUE,
SOMAVARPET, TILAKVADI, BELGAUM.
-2-
MFA No. 24378 of 2010
2. M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS MANAGER, BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV., FOR R2;
R1- NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT,
1923 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.08.2010
PASSED IN WC/CR NO.1/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
SUB DIVISION - I, BELLARY DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY.
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the unsuccessful
claimants in WC/CR No.1/2009 before the learned Labour
Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub
Division-I, Bellary (for short "the Commissioner"), who by
award dated 31.08.2010 rejected the claim petition on the
ground that the claimants do not fall under the category
'dependants' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(iii) of the
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short "the Act").
MFA No. 24378 of 2010
2. The brief facts are that one Umesh Duggeppa
Yadrami was stated to be working as a cleaner in lorry
bearing registration No.KA-22/B-1082 owned by respondent
No.1-Sri. Desai Logistics Goa Private Limited and insured
with respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Company
Limited. The allegation is that on 09.11.2008 at about 2.00
p.m., as per the direction of the employer, the vehicle was
stopped near HCL canal and for the purpose of washing the
lorry, the deceased had gone to the canal for filling water
and at that time, he slipped and fell into the canal meeting
his death.
3. On the claim petition being filed, both the
respondents entered appearance and respondent No.2 filed
its detailed statement of objections.
4. During trial, claimant No.1 examined herself as
PW1 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. Respondents did not
examine any witnesses and no documents were marked.
After hearing, the learned Commissioner rejected the claim
petition as already noted hereinabove.
MFA No. 24378 of 2010
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-claimants
strenuously contended before me that the claimants were
fully dependant on deceased-Umesh Yadrami for their
sustenance and claimant No.1 was deserted by her husband
and she was residing with the deceased. He further
contended that two other claimants are the maternal
grandparents of the deceased and since they had nobody
else to take care of them, they were also materially
dependants for their sustenance on the deceased and
therefore, the claimants-appellants will suffer miscarriage of
justice if the claim petition is thrown out merely on the
ground that they do not come under the definition
'dependants' as found in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
Therefore, he makes a passionate plea that the appeal is
required to be allowed and the learned Commissioner be
directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
6. Learned Counsel Sri. Nagaraj C. Kolloori, per
contra, submits that the claim petition cannot be entertained
and the learned Commissioner cannot seize the jurisdiction
merely on sympathetic ground and such claims can be
MFA No. 24378 of 2010
maintained only if the claimants fall within the category of
'dependants' as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Act. He
therefore, submits that the order of the learned
Commissioner is quite in accordance with law and no
interference with the same is called for.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made on both sides and I have perused the
records.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that three
claimants, who are the appellants before me are the married
sister, albeit a deserted one by the husband as contended by
the learned counsel and the maternal grandparents of
deceased-Umesh Yadrami. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act
defines, who are the dependants, who alone can maintain
claim petition under the provisions of the said Act. Section
2(1)(d) reads as follows:
"2. Definitions.-
(1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in
the subject or context,
(a) x x x x x x
MFA No. 24378 of 2010
(b) "Commissioner" means a Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation appointed under section
20;
(c) "Compensation" means compensation as provided
for by this Act;
(d) "Dependant" means any of the following relatives
of a deceased employee, namely:--
(i) a widow, a minor legitimate son, and unmarried
legitimate daughter, or a widowed mother; and
(ii) if wholly dependent on the earnings of the
employee at the time of his death, a son or a
daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and
who is infirm;
(iii) if wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of
the employee at the time of his death,
(a) a widower,
(b) a parent other than a widowed mother,
(c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate
daughter or a daughter legitimate or illegitimate if
married and a minor or if widowed and a minor,
(d) a minor brother or a unmarried sister or a
widowed sister if a minor,
(e) a widowed daughter- in- law,
(f) a minor child of a pre- deceased son,
(g) a minor child of a pre- deceased daughter where
no parent of the child is alive, or
(h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the
workman is alive"
9. It is obvious from the above that the claimant
No.1 being a married sister cannot be brought under Section
2(1)(d)(iii)(h) of the Act. Similarly, the two other claimants
MFA No. 24378 of 2010
being maternal grandparents cannot be brought under
section 2(1)(d)(iii)(h) of the Act, which covers only paternal
grandparents that too in the absence of the parents of the
deceased on account of whose death, the claim petition
arises. In that view of the matter, there is no error or
illegality in the order passed by the learned Commissioner
and therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The above appeal is dismissed.
Registry to transmit the records to the
Court of jurisdictional learned Senior Civil Judge,
forthwith.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive
for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
